The biggest safety investment in GA is...

"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 14:28:19 +0200, Thomas Borchert wrote:

At the "soft" end of
that range, even a less proficient IFR pilot can save the day where a
VFR-only pilot can't.

I'm not as sure that the line between soft and hard is that hard.

A friend recently experienced an electrical failure in 300' (or worse)
IMC. That's clearly hard.

I'd a flight a couple of days ago where the ceilings were around 4000'
where there were ceilings. 20 or 30 miles from the destination, we left a
bunch of clouds for sudden CAVU.

Definitely soft, right?

But there were times when we were cotton-balled en route. That, plus the
bumping we were getting, could (I think) have caused a less proficient
pilot (not that I'm all that hot an IFR stick myself {8^) to have "lost
it". Sure, dropping below was always an option. But had that
hypothetical pilot not exercised that option...

I can still envision bad things happening.

All that said, I've also been forwarding that article to a number of
friends. I've at least one co-owner that's quite forceful in his belief
that traffic is the ultimate safety device. Of course, he *is* instrument
rated already ...

Yet, the GA crowd, which is overwhelmingly (?) non-IR, has the highest
accident rates. Nealy 3 1/2 times their nearest "competitors".

Accident Rate Comparisons (U.S. Fleet)
Accidents per 100,000 hours (For 2005)
Corporate aviation(1) 0.08
Fractional jets 0.14
Scheduled airlines 0.17
FAR 91 business jets(2) 0.32
FAR 135 business jets 0.47
Business aviation(3) 0.73
Non-scheduled airlines 0.94
FAR 91 & 135 business turboprops 1.61
All air taxis 2.0
Regional airlines (4) 2.01
General aviation 6.6

1. All aircraft types flown by salaried crews for business purposes.
2. Business jets professionally and non-professionally flown.
3. All aircraft types, owner flown.
4. Regional airlines were re-classified in 1997 by the FAA causing rate
increase.
Source: Robert E. Breiling Associates

--------------------------

Notice the numbers and notes for "Business Aviation". Mostly IR'ed, but they
fly a LOT.


--
Matt Barrow
Performance Homes, LLC.
Cheyenne, WY

On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 11:34:48 -0700, Matt Barrow wrote:

Notice the numbers and notes for "Business Aviation". Mostly IR'ed, but
they fly a LOT.

The problem with this comparison is that there are a lot of variables.
There's the number of hours flown, the IR, the commercial cert, possibly
an ATP, the support staff, and probably other differences of which I'm
unaware. Any one of these would, I expect, help. Which helps more? I
don't see how we can determine that via this comparison.

Of course, the solution then is to do as many of these as possible. IR.
Commercial. Lots and lots of flying.

Like we need an excuse, right grin?

- Andrew

"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 11:34:48 -0700, Matt Barrow wrote:

Notice the numbers and notes for "Business Aviation". Mostly IR'ed, but
they fly a LOT.

The problem with this comparison is that there are a lot of variables.
There's the number of hours flown, the IR, the commercial cert, possibly
an ATP, the support staff, and probably other differences of which I'm
unaware. Any one of these would, I expect, help. Which helps more? I
don't see how we can determine that via this comparison.

Of course, the solution then is to do as many of these as possible. IR.
Commercial. Lots and lots of flying.

Like we need an excuse, right grin?

- Andrew

There is also a question regarding how much of the personal flying is
actually logged or reported. There is, to the best of my knowledge, no
requirement and little incentive to log much more than is required to prove
currency. Therefore, if it turned out that there was twice as much actual
flying as reported flying, then the statistic would not seem nearly as bad.

Peter

"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 11:34:48 -0700, Matt Barrow wrote:

Notice the numbers and notes for "Business Aviation". Mostly IR'ed, but
they fly a LOT.

The problem with this comparison is that there are a lot of variables.

Indeed there are...and those variables are what sets each group apart.
Hopefully, one can grasp what those variables are and how they effect the
stats.

There's the number of hours flown, the IR, the commercial cert, possibly
an ATP, the support staff, and probably other differences of which I'm
unaware. Any one of these would, I expect, help. Which helps more? I
don't see how we can determine that via this comparison.

Yes.

Now compare GA with Business Av. - those are the two closest in terms of
equipage, etc.


Of course, the solution then is to do as many of these as possible. IR.
Commercial. Lots and lots of flying.

Very few BA types (owner flown) have Comm tickets.


Like we need an excuse, right grin?

Like we need a hole in the head! :~(

On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 20:22:54 -0700, Matt Barrow wrote:

Of course, the solution then is to do as many of these as possible. IR.
Commercial. Lots and lots of flying.

Very few BA types (owner flown) have Comm tickets.


Oh? A number of the members of my club do. I was working on mine until
a combination of work and child pressure ate up too much time.

Like we need an excuse, right
grin?

Like we need a hole in the head! :~(

I still practice the maneuvers when I can. They're the fun part. The
rating as a whole was just a fun goal to aim towards with otherwise
aimless flying time.

- Andrew

It seems to me those who argue against getting the rating are
rationalizing. They are claiming their specific circumstances are
different enough from that represented in the OPs data to make the
findings not apply to them. Maybe they are right, but as a
professional shrink I'd surely want them to rethink their positions.

I think there would be fewer "Godspeed" notes here if the pilot in
command could have, on firing up the engine, been able to say
"November whatever, instruments to Podunk" instead of scud running.
Why would anyone with a few hundred hours of time or more resist doing
the little extra training?



On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 20:22:54 -0700, Matt Barrow wrote:
Of course, the solution then is to do as many of these as possible. IR.
Commercial. Lots and lots of flying.

Very few BA types (owner flown) have Comm tickets.

Oh? A number of the members of my club do. I was working on mine until
a combination of work and child pressure ate up too much time.



Like we need an excuse, right
grin?

Like we need a hole in the head! :~(

I still practice the maneuvers when I can. They're the fun part. The
rating as a whole was just a fun goal to aim towards with otherwise
aimless flying time.

- Andrew

On Sat, 07 Jul 2007 15:18:34 -0000, wrote in
. com:

Why would anyone with a few hundred hours of time or more resist doing
the little extra training?

Lack of ability and self-confidence?

Single-pilot IFR can be one of the most difficult tasks a person can
perform.

I once wrote in 1998:

"For me, IFR flight is a lot like playing a game of Chess in the
blind while juggling three balls in the air and maintaining a
running conversation at a noisy cocktail party. You have to
mentally visualize the position of the "pieces" on the "board,"
continually monitor and interpret a myriad of arcane instruments
and make corrections to keep the airplane shinny side up, all
while constantly attempting to pick out the ATC communiques
intended for you from the rest of the "guests'" conversations. To
this add the _stress_ of the consequences of losing the game
(death). (Of course, this analogy fails to consider weather,
turbulence, flight planning, interpreting charts and plates,
tuning radios and OBS settings, equipment failures, ....)

Single-pilot IFR aircraft operation in the ATC system in IMC
without the benefit of Global Positioning Satellite receiver,
auto-pilot, and Active Noise Reduction headset, is probably one of
the most demanding things you will ever do."

Something like a quarter or so of pilots seem to do it all right. My
husband claims he'd rather fly IFR when tired then VFR, especially at
night. This, in a Mooney 201 without an altitude hold on the
autopilot. Of course he has several thousand hours in it, that
probably makes a big difference.

On Jul 7, 11:55 am, Larry Dighera wrote:
On Sat, 07 Jul 2007 15:18:34 -0000, wrote in
. com:

Why would anyone with a few hundred hours of time or more resist doing
the little extra training?

Lack of ability and self-confidence?

Single-pilot IFR can be one of the most difficult tasks a person can
perform.

I once wrote in 1998:

"For me, IFR flight is a lot like playing a game of Chess in the
blind while juggling three balls in the air and maintaining a
running conversation at a noisy cocktail party. You have to
mentally visualize the position of the "pieces" on the "board,"
continually monitor and interpret a myriad of arcane instruments
and make corrections to keep the airplane shinny side up, all
while constantly attempting to pick out the ATC communiques
intended for you from the rest of the "guests'" conversations. To
this add the _stress_ of the consequences of losing the game
(death). (Of course, this analogy fails to consider weather,
turbulence, flight planning, interpreting charts and plates,
tuning radios and OBS settings, equipment failures, ....)

Single-pilot IFR aircraft operation in the ATC system in IMC
without the benefit of Global Positioning Satellite receiver,
auto-pilot, and Active Noise Reduction headset, is probably one of
the most demanding things you will ever do."

I seem to remember reading somewhere in this newsgroup that some
instrument rated pilots felt IFR was in fact easier than VFR. My
limited experience, some 10s of hours a year in IMC, with a rated and
current pilot is that his workload is very much under control. Most
times in IMC controller instructions come at most every few miles in
an approach, ditto departure. I'd enjoy hearing the opinions of others
who fly single pilot single engine instruments a lot.

On Jul 7, 11:55 am, Larry Dighera wrote:
On Sat, 07 Jul 2007 15:18:34 -0000, wrote in
. com:

Why would anyone with a few hundred hours of time or more resist doing
the little extra training?

Lack of ability and self-confidence?

Single-pilot IFR can be one of the most difficult tasks a person can
perform.

I once wrote in 1998:

"For me, IFR flight is a lot like playing a game of Chess in the
blind while juggling three balls in the air and maintaining a
running conversation at a noisy cocktail party. You have to
mentally visualize the position of the "pieces" on the "board,"
continually monitor and interpret a myriad of arcane instruments
and make corrections to keep the airplane shinny side up, all
while constantly attempting to pick out the ATC communiques
intended for you from the rest of the "guests'" conversations. To
this add the _stress_ of the consequences of losing the game
(death). (Of course, this analogy fails to consider weather,
turbulence, flight planning, interpreting charts and plates,
tuning radios and OBS settings, equipment failures, ....)

Single-pilot IFR aircraft operation in the ATC system in IMC
without the benefit of Global Positioning Satellite receiver,
auto-pilot, and Active Noise Reduction headset, is probably one of
the most demanding things you will ever do."

Larry Dighera wrote:

On Sat, 07 Jul 2007 15:18:34 -0000, wrote in
. com:


Why would anyone with a few hundred hours of time or more resist doing
the little extra training?


Lack of ability and self-confidence?

Single-pilot IFR can be one of the most difficult tasks a person can
perform.


A simple wing-leveler/heading hold auto pilot works wonders, and gives
you and extra 'set of hands' to do the other tasks involved with flying
IFR. Without that, I can admit that IFR can keep you really busy at
times, but its not that daunting.

I did all my instrument training without any auto-pilot whatsoever.
It was difficult but I mastered it to acceptable standards. Now with
an auto pilot I can't believe how much easier it is.

One should not take for granted the auto pilot however. I still
fly all approaces manually (don't have the luxury of a coupled AP).